Talk:Kidnapping and killing of Margaret Hassan

Citizenship

Does Margaret Hassan actually hold Irish citizenship? She was born in Dublin, and is certainly entitled to it, but all the reports that I have seen describe her as holding dual Iraqi and British citizenship. Perhaps it is the case that all people born in Ireland are automatically Irish citizens unless they specifically revoke it? Blorg 11:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well the papers here (the Irish Independent in any case) refer to her as Irish so I guess she is. Blorg 12:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, this is correct , you have to officially announce your Irish citizenship in person by attending a ceremony at the Irish embassy or the equivalent place in the Republic of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.230.96 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy & Paste needs rewriting

The following text (removed from the article) is a direct copy & paste from this BBC story. It needs to be rewritten/summarised. I'll do it myself if I get a chance, otherwise someone else could have a look at it. Blorg 11:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On Nov. 6th, BBc news said,a message claiming to come from a group led by the Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has called for the release of charity worker Margaret Hassan. Her kidnappers had been threatening to hand her to Jordanian-born Zarqawi's group unless British troops quit Iraq.

The message promises to free Mrs Hassan if she falls into their hands.

The message, signed "al-Qaeda in Iraq", was posted on a website known for publishing messages from Islamic militant groups.

It urges Mrs Hassan's kidnappers to publish any evidence against her and calls for her immediate release unless she is proven to be a spy "conspiring against Muslims".

"These people who are using this prisoner as a playing card didn't know our religion very well," it adds.

"In true Islam, they don't kill women and young children.

"We never kill people who we are not supposed to kill.

"We only kill those who fight us and kill our people.

"Many times we stop operating a successful attack because we know that Muslim people would be killed.

"We cancel these operations to save the blood of Muslims."

The message was posted under the pseudonym Abu Maysara al-Iraqi - the name usually associated with statements from al-Zarqawi's group, believed to number up to 500.

Death

CNN is reporting a statement by CARE International that Hassan has been executed. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/16/iraq.hassan/index.html . 23skidoo 18:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am extremely lost as to why no video has ever surfaced online showing this person's death; yet all of the other kidnap/execution videos have shown everything; not just the pleadings. I'm a little concerned that there isn't any hoax theory out there surrounding this very large discrepancy in the pattern of hostage executions purportedly coming from the Middle East. Also, there is no report of a body...?? --Julien Deveraux 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm totally confused as to whether she's really dead or not. The article says someone "alleged" they'd seen a video which has "yet" to be confirmed as genuine or not. And that the body turned out to NOT be hers. So, in summary, she could very well be alive and being held captive? I mean, why is there a trial for her murderer when there's no evidence of a death? - ca

Is/was

Shold it now be "Margaret Hassan was an aid worker..." instead of "Margaret Hassan is an aid worker..."?

I guess that depends on, whether her death is confirmed or not...

Murder not 'execution'

Execution implies some for of legal or quasi-legal process.

I believe that it implies some sort of formality or procedure in how the killing is carried out, although Wikipedia seems to disagree with me. — Darco 05:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's with the Margaret haters?

Several unpleasant comments have been found in this article. It was briefly vandalized to only the words "dumb slut", and also at one point there was a sentence in there, "She liked the smell of deer urine." I also just found the text: "This is a test."

What is your fucking problem? Wikipedia is no place for this. - Gavin

It is also no place for your profanity. Who is to say why Internet trolls vandalize? Alkivar 02:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The best we can do is revert it as quickly as possible so few readers have to see it. - MattTM | talk 02:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Pre-VfD Questions

What is it that makes this person's inclusion because of her death more valid than say Victoria Snelgrove (who was VfD'd). Other than age, what makes this woman more worthy? Please add to the lists and list your reasons below. Alkivar 02:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Commonalities between the two:

• Both were killed.
• Both recieved news coverage.
• Both are women.

Differences between the two:

• Age
• Citizens of different countries
• Deaths occured in different countries
• One was intentionally murdered, the other was "accidentally" murdered.
• Notability before they were killed. --Golbez 03:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

However she was not listed on Wikipedia until AFTER her deathkidnapping was publicized. Hence why I question this listing. Alkivar 03:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is not an indictment; Wikipedia is a work in progress. Just because she hadn't been doesn't mean she never would have, based on her standing when she died. Snelgrove, much more doubtful. --Golbez 03:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Just VfD now and get it over with. It's clear your intentions are such. And it will obviously be kept. We don't typically compare articles when considering deletion; they stand on their own merits. I don't necessarily agree with the Snelgrove deletion either. --Golbez 03:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"'Accidentally' murdered"? There's no such thing. One was an accidental death, caused by a crowd control device that was being used specifically in the belief that it would minimize the likelihood of any accidental deaths; the other was a fully intentional, cold-blooded kidnapping and murder, against a victim who was there in the country she was abducted from for humanitarian reasons.

As tragic as Victoria Snelgrove's accident was, it was just that, an accident. To call it "'accidental' murder", to attempt to create a false parity between an accident and a pre-meditated act of terrorism against a victim so far from being the "oppressor" it brought protest from among the Fallujah Mujahadeen themselves, is grotesque and intellectually dishonest. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Obviously you dont know much about manslaughter, it is the legal definition of an "accidental" murder. You'll note in the Murder article an accidental killing is listed as Third Degree Murder. Regardless of that point however, why does someone killed by terrorists become more worthy of inclusion than someone killed by police (which some might call terrorists - think 1960s south, police firehoses etc...). That is really what i'm asking. Because frankly this article reads more like a public Obit rather than an article (more info on her death than on anything to do with her life). Alkivar 05:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So put it on VfD and see what the community at large thinks, instead of just those with this in their watchlist. --Golbez 08:19, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Because VfD has become a place where people who have no interest in the subject follow their friends to gang up on people who they dislike. Alkivar 22:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What an evil world we live in.

Robert Fisk Article

Is mentioning the Robert Fisk article really appropriate in this context? All he is doing is speculating. It seems to detract from the primary focus of the article—Margaret. Conspiracy theories might hurt NPOV. — Darco 05:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good thing to mention, I'm glad it's there. Could be right, could be wrong, but either way it's important. An easier argument could be made that excluding it is contrary to NPOV, if you ask me. Everyking 06:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does the Fisk article/essay contribute? It does not contribute any factual information that we did not already know. What it does contribute is obviously non-NPOV conjecture. Unless such conjecture is popular (and considering that this article was just published today, that is highly unlikely), it seems like its inclusion would lend an air of credibility to the Fisk essay/article which it has not yet earned—hurting our own NPOV. — Darco 06:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who first added the article, although others have added it back after people had deleted it. It was also someone else who wrote the paragraph in the article. One person that deleted the article, who I reverted, had done this anonymously and very duplicitously under the cover of removing vandalism (in his revision comment.)

I don't think Fisk is accusing coalition forces of carrying out the murder. He does however raise the very valid point that whoever was holding Hassan was in no way associated with the people the coalition forces are currently fighting, or indeed the other kidnappers, as the videos showed none of the Islamic hallmarks of the previous videos, and many of these groups condemned Hassan's kidnapping, and said that they would free her if she were turned over to them.

He also points out that the murder will be jumped on by much Western media, to the pleasure of the occupying forces, as evidence that the 'enemy' is barbaric without limits, and thus justifying or excusing any level of response.

And this is working; I have already read reports that automatically associate Hassan's kidnappers with the resistance and terrorists operating in Iraq, and all of 'the enemy' as truly without limits.

Fisk is a respected although often controversial journalist. This article originally appeared in the London Independent, hardly a non-mainstream newspaper, and was widely syndicated around the world (mainly in Independent News & Media properties). My preference would be to remove the paragraph about it from the end of the article, but leave the link and let people decide for themselves. Blorg 09:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph about the Fisk article to be much less inflamatory and added a Guardian article about the mystery over who killed Hassan. As just one quick example of exactly what Fisk was worried about, see this editorial which compares Hassan's killing with the Marine executions of wounded in Fallujah, making excuses for the latter. And the tabloids are far worse than this. Blorg 11:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality of last section

The last section in the article aiming at "the response of the arab media" specifically is not exactly neutral. As it seems to criticize the arab media for blaming the US for the marine incident while ignoring the murder of Hassan. It should be noted that a Marine represents a government - the US government - therefore it was important to point out the incident. While the actions taken by the rogue iraqi militia doesn't represent the actual view of any government , or the view of arabs in general. I suppose ALjazeera made a correct decision by not viewing the murder as it could have been unreal. --Thesamo 04:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur, it also gives provides no sources so its claims can be verified. Conversely, it is interesting to note that the international media demonstrates extreme reluctance and caution when airing images of soldiers killing civilians and Iraqi resistance fighters.Parrhesiasts 17:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree, the last section is just not from a neutral point of view.

Worth Mentioning

Might want to wait until the story is fully fleshed out before adding it... but according to British MP Matthew Parris the British government conspired to keep Hassan's ransom from being paid by a wealthy anonymous donor. Mr. Parris said it was implied that the offer would put the donor's children at risk for kidnappings.

Anyone have a video link?

Almost all of the other entries for Iraqi beheading/shooting victims (especially the really high-profile ones) have links to video clips showing the deed, but Hassan has none even though she is probably the most high-profile hostage after Nick Berg.ChildeRolandofGilead 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)